DOCSLIB.ORG

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LODZIENSIS Pawei Mastalerz THE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LODZIENSIS Pawei Mastalerz THE ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LODZIENSIS FOIJA LITTERARIA ANGLICA 1, 1997 Pawei Mastalerz THE PRESENTATION OF KING LEAR IN THREE PRODUCTIONS BY THE RSC In this study I would like to examine the part of King Lear in three productions of King Lear staged by the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon: George Devine’s production in 1953, Glen Byam Shaw’s production in 1959, and Peter Brook’s production in 1962. D u­ ring that time there were also other performances of King Lear in En­ gland but not in Stratford and that is why I will not include them in my presentation. I carried out some research at The Shakespeare Centre Library in Stratford-upon-Avon. Since none of the above mentioned performances was recorded or filmed I could only rely on newspaper reviews of first nights, arranged and collected chronologically by the Library, as they appeared in various newspapers,1 original Royal Shakes­ peare Company prompt-books, available at the library, and books and articles commenting on and analysing the three productions. I also ana­ lysed production photos and slides stored at The Shakespeare Centre Library. King Lear entered the twentieth century mauled and misinterpreted. The text was regarded as one of the greatest of literary achievements, but the play had fallen victim to incompetence and misunderstanding which kept its potential powers hidden and waiting to be discovered. The shape of the play after the Second World War, however, was greatly influenced by two critics: A. C. Bradley and H. Granville-Barker. Their interpretations of the play and its main protagonist discarded the old nineteenth century traditions of playing the part of Lear and opened ways for new modern interpretative possibilities. In 1906 A. C. Bradley published his famous lectures On Shakespearean Tragedy. He dealt with Shakespeare’s tragedies in a methodical way. He 1 All newspaper cuts are arranged chronologically in books stored at the Shakespeare Centre in Stratford-on-Avon. The pages are not numbered. defined characteristic elements of Shakespearean tragedy. The total rever­ sal of fortune coming unaware upon an important person does not sim­ ply happen nor is it caused by the malicious gods. It stems from the actions of the hero. His catastrophe is brought about by the tragic flaw in his personality.2 This approach, focusing its attention on the protago­ nist, was nothing new and it followed Aristotle’s views on the tragic hero. But the new scholarly analysis prompted both directors and actors to analyse the text and the part of Lear anew, looking not only for great theatrical opportunities but also for a consistent interpretation. But, since Bradley was predominantly a scholar, and not a man of the theat­ re, he failed to recognise the play’s real dramatic possibilities. To him, King Lear was “imperfectly dramatic” and “too huge for the stage” which is the test of strictly dramatic quality. It has scenes “immensely effective in the theatre”, but, as he writes, there are so many inconsis­ tencies in the dramatic plot that it is impossible to maintain the drama­ tic spell. “Shakespeare’s greatest work of art, but not the best of his plays”, he wrote.3 Bradley’s analysis of Shakespeare’s tragedy was a turning point in Shakespearean studies. Still, he missed many points which waited to be explained by a man of theatre. This man was Harley Granville-Barker, who in 1927 published his Prefaces to Shakespeare. Granville-Barker was a Shakes­ pearean scholar and a director. Therefore he possessed the skills which Bradley essentially lacked. His study was supported by a thorough examination of all available data concerning the Elizabethan stage and its workings. To him Shakespeare was an Elizabethan playwright, but he was also something more. It follows that Shakespeare’s art should never be confined to one fixed set of rules; his was a genius breaking bonds of conventions and orthodoxy and should not be thrust back there.4 Granville-Barker advocated approaching any Shakespearean text as a prompt-book: “a score waiting performance”.5 Such an approach freed the actors playing Lear from following century long traditions of presenting that part according to fixed stereotypes. Out of the three performances which I wish to examine, the first one seems to be the most faithful embodiment of Bradley’s and Granville-Barker’s theories, signalling the oncoming changes. The following two productions marked a more definite departure from that tradition. 2 A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, (London: Macmillan Press, 1965), p. 10. 3 Ibid., pp. 198-203. 4 H. Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare: Collected Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1970), p. 3. I George Devine, the producer of the 1953 production, was approaching the text for the first time. His intention was to expose the text’s main problems without resorting to any unusual concepts. He avoided excessive cuts and tried to clarify puzzling and ambiguous moments. Philip Hope-Wallace called it after its first night a “sure, steady and satisfying production”.6 When the curtain went up the audience was presented with a setting in the monolithic tradition. Robert Colquhoun, a distinguished Scottish abstract painter, combined the swirl of steps in the middle of the stage with a central megalithic heap of rocks used as a throne. Robert Speaight wrote that the set was effectively stylised, leading “the mind back to the mystery of prehistoric man, to the primeval shapes of antiquity” and at the same time “fixing us on the universals of the play”.7 Into such a world King Lear was introduced. The part of Lear was played by Michael Redgrave, an actor of great presence and voice. He was often praised for intelligent rather than emotional conceptions of his tragic characters, giving many times the impression of “feeling the part”.8 He was a tall, impressive looking man with a commanding voice. When “shrill trumpets sounding discordant fanfares and insistent drums”9 announced the arrival of Lear, Kent, Gloucester and Edmund took their places on the left side of the stage and waited. First, came two attendants carrying Lear’s regalia; the first brought his sword, the other his crown. After them came Lear. As reported by John Barber he was visibly aged with a long grey tousled beard and his tall back bowed. He shuffled a bit as he walked panting and gasping for breath. His jaw had a senile quaver and his voice cracked.10 As he sat down the courtiers took their places, attending the official ceremony. Lear looked lovingly at his daughters pausing his tired eyes on Cordelia. This Lear was an old man, fond and foolish. After his first words one could see that he wished to die and wanted to renounce his kingship to his daughters and put himself into their care. All this and the paternal tenderness and trust established his dotage. Redgrave, reviving the old-fashioned view of Lear as robbed of his virility by the years as well as his judgement, by stressing his corporal infirmities, showed the process by which disappoin­ tment, ill-invested trust and subsequent tribulations turn his shaky, senile 6 Ph. Hope-Wallace, Manchester Guardian, July 16 (1953). 7 R. Speaight, The Tablet, August 22 (1953). ' Author unknown, Birmingham Post, July 11 (1953). 9 Author unknown, Croydon News, July 11 (1953). 10 J. Barber, Birmingham Post, July 11 (1953). mind into madness. J. S. Bratton reports that the twist came when Cordelia refused to idolise him. His choleric nature became visible again. But the effects of his fury came as a total surprise. Ivonne Mitchel, playing to Redgrave’s Lear, reacted to Lear’s lines, in which he disowns and disinherits her, with appalled and shocked astonishment.11 And when Kent opposed his Master and interceded for Cordelia, Lear reached for his sword. Redgrave, however, made him unable to match his fury with action so, he could only “fumble his great broadsword half out of its sheath”.12 Redgrave’s acting, carefully planned to the minutest detail, was considered old-fashioned. But critics praised Redgrave for the way he carried it off “giving off somehow in the way he sits and stands and listens the very feel and ... smell of old age.”13 He also avoided charging into high rage which might be difficult to reconcile with his old age. His warning to Kent was flat and colourless. It looked as if Redgrave was reserving his strength for later scenes. After the beginning, which was received with mixed feelings, came the real highlights of the production. The curse scene was one of them. Lear’s fury built up gradually. At first Redgrave, playing the feebly aged Lear, marked his fury by lashing the stage with his whip.14 On “Saddle my horses”, Devine had all the cast move away from Lear leaving him in the traditional isolation centre stage to deliver the curse on Goneril.15 When Lear cursed Goneril with his arms raised against the sky like “one of the old gods, to whom he called”, his majestic sovereignty and the imperious eye of Lear became visible at last.16 The little climax came in Act II scene IV when Goneril and Regan revealed their true intentions and decided to strip their royal father of his former dignity. J. S. Bratton reports that Redgrave’s Lear was driven into a state in which he was torn by “rage and impotency pulling against each other and forcing the crack wider until control is fatally loosened and finally gone”. Lear’s lines “No, you unnatural hags,/ I will have such revenges on you both/ That all the world shall - I will do such things”, were spoken half mad, half sane and were a key m om ent.17 The tempest was generally subdued, the repertoire of technical storm- -effects was reduced to a minimum.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, a MATTER of LIFE and DEATH/ STAIRWAY to HEAVEN (1946, 104 Min)
    December 8 (XXXI:15) Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH/ STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN (1946, 104 min) (The version of this handout on the website has color images and hot urls.) Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger Music by Allan Gray Cinematography by Jack Cardiff Film Edited by Reginald Mills Camera Operator...Geoffrey Unsworth David Niven…Peter Carter Kim Hunter…June Robert Coote…Bob Kathleen Byron…An Angel Richard Attenborough…An English Pilot Bonar Colleano…An American Pilot Joan Maude…Chief Recorder Marius Goring…Conductor 71 Roger Livesey…Doctor Reeves Robert Atkins…The Vicar Bob Roberts…Dr. Gaertler Hour of Glory (1949), The Red Shoes (1948), Black Narcissus Edwin Max…Dr. Mc.Ewen (1947), A Matter of Life and Death (1946), 'I Know Where I'm Betty Potter…Mrs. Tucker Going!' (1945), A Canterbury Tale (1944), The Life and Death of Abraham Sofaer…The Judge Colonel Blimp (1943), One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942), 49th Raymond Massey…Abraham Farlan Parallel (1941), The Thief of Bagdad (1940), Blackout (1940), The Robert Arden…GI Playing Bottom Lion Has Wings (1939), The Edge of the World (1937), Someday Robert Beatty…US Crewman (1935), Something Always Happens (1934), C.O.D. (1932), Hotel Tommy Duggan…Patrick Aloyusius Mahoney Splendide (1932) and My Friend the King (1932). Erik…Spaniel John Longden…Narrator of introduction Emeric Pressburger (b. December 5, 1902 in Miskolc, Austria- Hungary [now Hungary] —d. February 5, 1988, age 85, in Michael Powell (b. September 30, 1905 in Kent, England—d. Saxstead, Suffolk, England) won the 1943 Oscar for Best Writing, February 19, 1990, age 84, in Gloucestershire, England) was Original Story for 49th Parallel (1941) and was nominated the nominated with Emeric Pressburger for an Oscar in 1943 for Best same year for the Best Screenplay for One of Our Aircraft Is Writing, Original Screenplay for One of Our Aircraft Is Missing Missing (1942) which he shared with Michael Powell and 49th (1942).
    [Show full text]
  • Text Pages Layout MCBEAN.Indd
    Introduction The great photographer Angus McBean has stage performers of this era an enduring power been celebrated over the past fifty years chiefly that carried far beyond the confines of their for his romantic portraiture and playful use of playhouses. surrealism. There is some reason. He iconised Certainly, in a single session with a Yankee Vivien Leigh fully three years before she became Cleopatra in 1945, he transformed the image of Scarlett O’Hara and his most breathtaking image Stratford overnight, conjuring from the Prospero’s was adapted for her first appearance in Gone cell of his small Covent Garden studio the dazzle with the Wind. He lit the touchpaper for Audrey of the West End into the West Midlands. (It is Hepburn’s career when he picked her out of a significant that the then Shakespeare Memorial chorus line and half-buried her in a fake desert Theatre began transferring its productions to advertise sun-lotion. Moreover he so pleased to London shortly afterwards.) In succeeding The Beatles when they came to his studio that seasons, acknowledged since as the Stratford he went on to immortalise them on their first stage’s ‘renaissance’, his black-and-white magic LP cover as four mop-top gods smiling down continued to endow this rebirth with a glamour from a glass Olympus that was actually just a that was crucial in its further rise to not just stairwell in Soho. national but international pre-eminence. However, McBean (the name is pronounced Even as his photographs were created, to rhyme with thane) also revolutionised British McBean’s Shakespeare became ubiquitous.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lively Theatre There's a Revolution Afoot in Theatre Design, Believes
    A LIVELY THEatRE There’s a revolution afoot in theatre design, believes architectural consultant RICHARD PILBROW, that takes its cue from the three-dimensional spaces of centuries past The 20th century has not been a good time for theatre architecture. In the years from the 1920s to the 1970s, the world became littered with overlarge, often fan-shaped auditoriums that are barren in feeling and lacking in intimacy--places that are seldom conducive to that interplay between actor and audience that lies at the heart of the theatre experience. Why do theatres of the 19th century feel so much more “theatrical”? And why do so many actors and audiences prefer the old to the new? More generally, does theatre architecture really matter? There are some that believe that as soon as the house lights dim, the audience only needs to see and hear what happens on the stage. Perhaps audiences don’t hiss, boo and shout during a performance any more, but most actors and directors know that an audience’s reaction critically affects the performance. The nature of the theatre space, the configuration of the audience and the intimacy engendered by the form of the auditorium can powerfully assist in the formation of that reaction. A theatre auditorium may be a dead space or a lively one. Theatres designed like cinemas or lecture halls can lay a dead hand on the theatre experience. Happily, the past 20 years have seen a revolution in attitude to theatre design. No longer is a theatre only a place for listening or viewing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Royal Court Young Peoples’ Theatre and Its Development Into the Young Writers’ Programme
    Building the Engine Room: A Study of the Royal Court Young Peoples’ Theatre and its Development into the Young Writers’ Programme N O Holden Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Building the Engine Room: A Study of the Royal Court’s Young Peoples’ Theatre and its Development into the Young Writers’ Programme Nicholas Oliver Holden, MA, AKC A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Lincoln for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Fine and Performing Arts College of Arts March 2018 2 DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in substantially the same form for a higher degree elsewhere. 3 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors: Dr Jacqueline Bolton and Dr James Hudson, who have been there with advice even before this PhD began. I am forever grateful for your support, feedback, knowledge and guidance not just as my PhD supervisors, but as colleagues and, now, friends. Heartfelt thanks to my Director of Studies, Professor Mark O’Thomas, who has been a constant source of support and encouragement from my years as an undergraduate student to now as an early career academic. To Professor Dominic Symonds, who took on the role of my Director of Studies in the final year; thank you for being so generous with your thoughts and extensive knowledge, and for helping to bring new perspectives to my work. My gratitude also to the University of Lincoln and the School of Fine and Performing Arts for their generous studentship, without which this PhD would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Theatre Archive Project Archive
    University of Sheffield Library. Special Collections and Archives Ref: MS 349 Title: Theatre Archive Project: Archive Scope: A collection of interviews on CD-ROM with those visiting or working in the theatre between 1945 and 1968, created by the Theatre Archive Project (British Library and De Montfort University); also copies of some correspondence Dates: 1958-2008 Level: Fonds Extent: 3 boxes Name of creator: Theatre Archive Project Administrative / biographical history: Beginning in 2003, the Theatre Archive Project is a major reinvestigation of British theatre history between 1945 and 1968, from the perspectives of both the members of the audience and those working in the theatre at the time. It encompasses both the post-war theatre archives held by the British Library, and also their post-1968 scripts collection. In addition, many oral history interviews have been carried out with visitors and theatre practitioners. The Project began at the University of Sheffield and later transferred to De Montfort University. The archive at Sheffield contains 170 CD-ROMs of interviews with theatre workers and audience members, including Glenda Jackson, Brian Rix, Susan Engel and Michael Frayn. There is also a collection of copies of correspondence between Gyorgy Lengyel and Michel and Suria Saint Denis, and between Gyorgy Lengyel and Sir John Gielgud, dating from 1958 to 1999. Related collections: De Montfort University Library Source: Deposited by Theatre Archive Project staff, 2005-2009 System of arrangement: As received Subjects: Theatre Conditions of access: Available to all researchers, by appointment Restrictions: None Copyright: According to document Finding aids: Listed MS 349 THEATRE ARCHIVE PROJECT: ARCHIVE 349/1 Interviews on CD-ROM (Alphabetical listing) Interviewee Abstract Interviewer Date of Interview Disc no.
    [Show full text]
  • The Physician at the Movies Peter E
    The physician at the movies Peter E. Dans, MD Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth (as Prince Albert/King George VI), and Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech (2010). The Weinstein Company,/Photofest. The King’s Speech helphimrelaxhisvocalcordsandtogivehimconfidencein Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, anxiousmoments.Heisalsotoldtoputpebblesinhismouth Guy Pearce, and Derek Jacobi. like Demosthenes was said to have done to speak over the Directed by Tom Hooper. Rated R and PG. Running time 118 waves.Allthatdoesismakehimalmostchoketodeath. minutes. His concerned wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), poses as a Mrs. Johnson to enlist the aid of an unorthodox box-officefavoritewithanupliftingcoherentstorywins speechtherapist,LionelLogue,playedwithgustobyGeoffrey the Academy Award as Best Picture. Stop the presses! Rush. Firth deserved his Academy Award for his excellent AThefilm chronicles the transformation of the Duke of York job in reproducing the disability and capturing the Duke’s (ColinFirth),wholookslike“adeerintheheadlights”ashe diffidence while maintaining his awareness of being a royal. stammers and stutters before a large crowd at Wembley Still,itisRushwhomakesthemoviecomealiveandhasthe StadiumattheclosingoftheEmpireExhibitionin1925, best lines, some from Shakespeare—he apologizes to Mrs. J tohisdeliveryofaspeechthatralliesanationatwar fortheshabbinessofhisstudiowithalinefromOthellothat in1939.Thedoctorswhoattendtowhattheycall being“poorandcontentisrich,andrichenough.”Refusingto tongue-tiednessadvocatecigarettesmokingto
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Companion to Directors' Shakespeare Glen Byam
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Companion to Directors’ Shakespeare John Russell Brown Glen Byam Shaw Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203932520.ch3 Nick Walton Published online on: 26 Apr 2010 How to cite :- Nick Walton. 26 Apr 2010, Glen Byam Shaw from: The Routledge Companion to Directors’ Shakespeare Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203932520.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 GLEN BYAM SHAW Nick Walton Glen Byam Shaw’s direction was commonly perceived as being ‘assured and unobtrusive’, ‘blessedly straightforward’, ‘a model of sensitive presentation’, and above all ‘sympathetic to the players and the play’. His direction was also said to possess a ‘Mozartian quality’, ‘a radiance’ and an ‘unobtrusive charm’.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Convergence the Dublin Gate Theatre, 1928–1960
    Cultural Convergence The Dublin Gate Theatre, 1928–1960 Edited by Ondřej Pilný · Ruud van den Beuken · Ian R. Walsh Cultural Convergence “This well-organised volume makes a notable contribution to our understanding of Irish theatre studies and Irish modernist studies more broadly. The essays are written by a diverse range of leading scholars who outline the outstanding cultural importance of the Dublin Gate Theatre, both in terms of its national significance and in terms of its function as a hub of international engagement.” —Professor James Moran, University of Nottingham, UK “The consistently outstanding contributions to this illuminating and cohesive collection demonstrate that, for Gate Theatre founders Hilton Edwards and Micheál mac Liammóir and their collaborators, the limits of the imagination lay well beyond Ireland’s borders. Individually and collectively, the contribu- tors to this volume unravel the intricate connections, both personal and artistic, linking the theatre’s directors, designers, and practitioners to Britain, Europe, and beyond; they examine the development and staging of domestic plays written in either English or Irish; and they trace across national boundaries the complex textual and production history of foreign dramas performed in translation. In addition to examining a broad spectrum of intercultural and transnational influ- ences and perspectives, these frequently groundbreaking essays also reveal the extent to which the early Gate Theatre was a cosmopolitan, progressive, and inclusive space that recognized and valued women’s voices and queer forms of expression.” —Professor José Lanters, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, USA “Cultural Convergence is a book for which we have been waiting, not just in Irish theatre history, but in Irish cultural studies more widely.
    [Show full text]
  • ST. GERMAIN STAGE JUNE 15-JULY 8, 2017 PLACE a Town in Coastal Maine
    JULIANNE BOYD, ARTISTIC DIRECTOR SPONSORED BY Judith A. Goldsmith THE BY BIRDSConor McPherson BASED ON THE SHORT STORY BY DAPHNE DU MAURIER FEATURING Stevie Ray Dallimore Sasha Diamond Kathleen McNenny Rocco Sisto SCENIC DESIGNER COSTUME DESIGNER LIGHTING DESIGNER David M. Barber Elivia Bovenzi Brian Tovar SOUND DESIGNER PROJECTION DESIGNER David Thomas Alex Basco Koch CASTING PRODUCTION STAGE MANAGER Pat McCorkle, CSA Michael Andrew Rodgers BERKSHIRE PRESS REPRESENTATIVE NATIONAL PRESS REPRESENTATIVE Charlie Siedenburg Matt Ross Public Relations DIRECTED BY Julianne Boyd SPONSORED IN PART BY Audrey and Ralph Friedner & Richard Ziter, M.D. THE 2017 ST. GERMAIN SEASON IS SPONSORED BY The Claudia and Steven Perles Family Foundation THE BIRDS is presented by special arrangement with Dramatists Play Service, Inc., New York. ST. GERMAIN STAGE JUNE 15-JULY 8, 2017 PLACE A town in coastal Maine CAST IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE Diane ...........................................................................................Kathleen McNenny* Nat ........................................................................................... Stevie Ray Dallimore* Julia ................................................................................................ Sasha Diamond* Tierney ................................................................................................... Rocco Sisto* "They never saw this one coming, ha? No one ever thought nature was just going to eat us." -Tierney, The Birds, Conor McPherson STAFF Production Stage Manager
    [Show full text]
  • Theatre Archive Project
    THEATRE ARCHIVE PROJECT http://sounds.bl.uk Helen Neale – interview transcript Interviewer: Dominic Shellard 4 September 2006 Actress and theatre-goer. Peggy Ashcroft; As You Like It; Richard Burton; Agatha Christie's plays; critics; Frances Cuka; The Guildhall; John Gielgud; learning parts; Joan Plowright; Terence Rattigan; repertory; rehearsal structure; revue; Roots; Separate Tables; Shakespeare; Stratford; theatre-going; Kenneth Tynan; Peter Ustinov; West Side Story; women. DS: Hello, it’s delightful to be able to meet you. Can I just ask at the beginning of the interview whether we have your permission to place the interview in the National Sound Archive for the British Library so people can quote from it? HN: Yes. DS: Thank you very much indeed. OK, I think we’re going to divide this interview into two sections – we’re going to talk about your theatre going and about your training as an actress and your experience of weekly rep. Shall we start with the theatre going, in the early 1950s? HN: Yes. Well, the first really exciting thing that happened was my parents booked in for us to have a holiday, myself and my sister and them, at Stratford in 1950. And this was very exciting because this was the beginning of the new Stratford, this was Anthony Quayle, Glen Byam Shaw, only five plays being done, which they started in April - you didn’t get the full five in repertory until August, so we went in August. Also, I didn’t realise at the time, but I have read Gielgud’s letters since, and of course it is the beginning of his second stage as an actor, it’s when he takes on the deeply unpleasant part of Angelo in Measure for Measure, plays his first Cassius, which is terrific.
    [Show full text]
  • English Productions of Measure for Measure on Stage and Screen
    English Productions of Measure for Measure on Stage and Screen: The Play’s Indeterminacy and the Authority of Performance Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Department of English and Creative Writing Lancaster University March, 2016 Rachod Nusen Declaration I declare that this thesis is my own work, and has not been submitted in substantially the same form for the award of a higher degree elsewhere. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Alison Findlay. Without her advice, kindness and patience, I would be completely lost. It is magical how she could help a man who knew so little about Shakespeare in performance to complete this thesis. I am forever indebted to her. I am also indebted to Dr. Liz Oakley-Brown, Professor Geraldine Harris, Dr. Karen Juers-Munby, Dr. Kamilla Elliott, Professor Hilary Hinds and Professor Stuart Hampton-Reeves for their helpful suggestions during the annual, upgrade, mock viva and viva panels. I would like to acknowledge the Shakespeare Centre Library and Archive, the National Theatre Archive, the Shakespeare’s Globe Library and Archives, the Theatre Collection at the University of Bristol, the National Art Library and the Folger Shakespeare Library on where many of my materials are based. Moreover, I am extremely grateful to Mr. Phil Willmott who gave me an opportunity to interview him. I also would like to take this opportunity to show my appreciation to Thailand’s Office of the Higher Education Commission for finically supporting my study and Chiang Mai Rajabhat University for allowing me to pursue it.
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Byam Shaw (1904-1986) Was an Actor/Director Whose Work Shaped British Theatre and Shakespeare Across the Last Century
    Small Research Grant Report Julian Richards Glen Byam Shaw (1904-1986) was an actor/director whose work shaped British Theatre and Shakespeare across the last century. Shaw is notable from a research perspective for having made detailed pre-production notebooks for all of the Shakespeare productions he directed. From 1947-51 he directed the Old Vic Theatre School. Shaw became co-director of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in 1952, first with Anthony Quayle and then alone. There he directed 14 plays, revitalised the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, brought in major figures to direct productions, oversaw productions including Tony Richardson’s Othello, directed As You Like It to begin in winter and progress to summer for the first time, and selected Peter Hall to succeed him in 1959. Hall established the RSC a year later, building on Shaw’s foundation. My thesis seeks to serve as the first major biographical investigation of Shaw. No full biography of Shaw exists, despite the fact that almost all of his contemporaries and friends have been extensively biographed and studied. Shaw’s influence on British theatre is not accurately reflected by the amount of scholarship surrounding him. Shaw was key to the development of post-war Shakespeare and was also the key architect of what would become the RSC. His work at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre; revitalising the theatre’s output, bringing in both renowned, established names and up and coming practitioners; gave Peter Hall the opportunity to build on that legacy in the RSC. A case could be made for Shaw being the most significant figure in post-war Shakespeare.
    [Show full text]